Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible?
[TheBORG] writes "Professor David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol in the UK, believes that there is no scientific reason why 'synthehol' (a science-fictional substitute for alcohol that appears in Star Trek:The Next Generation television series) cannot be created now. It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers." Of course, there's still the real deal, Romulan Ale, for when you want a splitting headache in the morning.
I didn't make my career trusting scientists with names like "Professor Nutt." And for the record, the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.
Limina.Log
The future of alcoholism just got brighter.
Now if only they could get rid of the part of alcohol that makes people act like assholes.
"There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google
Failing college is the punishment. If you're stupid enough to drink to such excess after learning your own limits you probably don't belong there anyway.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.
The same could be said about Slashdot but you still post in here.
I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
It's hard enough to get the much less addictive and less harmfull drugs like Marijuana that people have used for thousands of years to be legal. Making some new alcohol like substance legal as a recreational drug would be near impossible.
Really, if alcohol didn't have the added guise of also being a food, and being impossibly easy to create on your own it'd be illegal now.
AccountKiller
The authorities have already lost the plot in the war on drugs. What with meth anphetamine, ecstacy, LSD and any number of other lab created drugs out there, do you really think that any government is going to allow another synthetically produced substance that alters your mood in any way whatsoever? The moment it happens the meddlers and self-appointed moral guardians that prescribe what is and isn't good for us, would be calling for a ban.
So... how many people in excess of typical norms have to die before they realize this was a bad can of worms to open?
How many people have to use alcohol responsibly before you realize that for the vast majority of people it's not "a bad can of worms to open"?
Sorry if I seem a tad against the idea... but I think alchohol is a waste of time and money that could better be used to improve oneself and the society in which they live.
Spoken by someone that's probbably never had a hard day and needed to relax. Do you seriously work all the time on improving yourself and society, or do you need a break now and again? Movies, television, computer games, and the internet could all be considered by some "a waste of time and money that could be better used to improve oneself". We human beings need stress reduction. Many of us choose to drink a moderate amount to do so. If alcohol doesn't do it for you, great, don't drink. But if you can't see the benefits for responsible people who use it, you're just plain blind.
AccountKiller
Advertising a drug like GHB as being "healthier" than alcohol at normal levels is pretty screwed up man, seeing as it's ridiculously easy to make and as a result most of the stuff that you could buy on the street is made by some skeg bastard in his garage and is contaminated with nasties.
(rant) Meth, tobacco, alcohol, and perhaps PCP are the worst popular drugs, in terms of bodily harm. People do fucked up things when they're addicted to heroin, etc, but the drug itself is not that bad for you. From Wikipedia: ... "Francis L. Young, an administrative law judge with the Drug Enforcement Agency, has declared that in its natural form, (cannabis) is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known." Whereas tobacco is the biggest easily preventable cause of death/bodily harm out there, with alcohol not too far behind. Its about protecting the interests of big tobacco and alcohol, not about the safety of people or even cost to society in terms of medical expenses, etc. Plus this way the politicians get to seem "pro-family" in their strong stance against "dangerous drugs". In this context, would it really be possible for some new drug to be allowed, even if it removes some of the negative consequences of alcohol (see GHB, benzodiazapenes, etc. etc.) (/rant)
...but I had lectures from him and he's really rather good and certainly knows his stuff. If you want to knock him for his name then fine.
A psychopharmacologist is interested in why and how chemicals interact with the brain and nervous system, so it's quite within his mandate to speculate on how something like 'synthehol' should theoretically be possible. Invariably you tend to find that postgraduates in the UK have to write papers on how something is theoretically possible in order to attract funding for research.
These papers are in the public domain, so if some Sci-Fi fan for LiveScience breaks the news with the sensationalist title "Hangover-free Buzz: Star Trek's Synthehol Now Possible" while at the same time quoting passages from the paper like "Some "partial agonists" of GABA-A receptors already exist; bretazenil and pagoclone were developed as anti-anxiety drugs. These drug molecules are instantly reversible by the flumazenil, used as an antidote to overdoses of tranquillisers.", I'd wager that you should be shooting the messenger here, not the scientist.
>> Now, be honest, do you really drink for the taste? If someone suggested fruit juice instead of wine what would you think?
Yes, I do. I quite enjoy scotch, but rarely have more than one or two a week... I do drink it purely for the taste (one drink is hardly enough to get a buzz, let alone get drunk). When I drink beer, I also rarely have more than one. As difficult as this may seem to you, it's fairly normal with most people I know. My generation (born in early 70's if you ask) doesn't seem to have the "drink a few every night after work" mentality that our parents did. Maybe I live in an exceptional microcosm... who knows.
As for fruit juice... I don't particularly like the taste, sorry. If it were as complex and enjoyable as Oban or Lagavulin, maybe I'd buy it by the gallon.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
That's right, use upper and middle class citizen's are mature enough to handle recreational drugs. But those on the bottom, they are helpless, we need to protect them. Please. Drugs and addiction effect everyone regardless of class, but they are still a matter of personal choice.
Spencer Ogden
"...experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects..."
Funny thing here. For me alcohol is a flavour and texture component of my favorite drinks. The volatility and solvent properties of ethanol make most alcoholic drinks impossible to fake--dealcoholized wines are wretched, non-alcoholic beer if carefully done can rise to the level of almost mediocre, and dealcoholized hard liquor is an oxymoron.
For me and many others, the "enjoyable" effects are not the "intoxicating" effects, and in fact the latter often fall under the category of "unpleasant side-effects."
This is just another drug to get stoned on. Big deal. Personally, I'd stick to mushrooms.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Every good inventor has had to have some kind of inspiration to actually make the invention. Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention — the inventor needs a particular device or effect, so he creates it — but sometimes they don't realize there is a need, or they don't have a basis to work from. Some brilliant researcher could be looking at the paper, smacking his forehead and crying "Now why didn't I think of that?" and proceed to apply his research in anti-anxiety drugs to create alcohol without negative effects. Sure, it's the end result guy who gets the patent (or, if the first guy is clever enough to pull off a very general patent, he may get it), but it was the inspiration of the person who posted the theoretical idea that got things off of the ground.
Heck, you see it all the time in programming. Someone points out a theoretical vulnerability in an encryption algorithm and next you know, someone's posted a practical implementation. Personally, I wonder if the original poster was trying to avoid DMCA lawsuits by getting someone else to be their catspaw, but the idea is there.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
...because if they did make it, it would be considered a drug, subject to FDA regulations, and so forth.
By all rights, alcohol should be considered a drug. It is a drug. It's just that it has such a unique relationship with our society that it's essentially "grandfathered in"--the one time they tried to regulate it as a drug, it caused so much trouble that they ended up deregulating it again.
But a "synthetic alcohol," regardless of whether it's supposed to act just like alcohol without the bad side-effects, would not be the same thing as alcohol--so it would probably never be available in lieu of alcohol.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how they could incorporate it into beers, wines, or liquors, given that the character of the beverages is created at the same time the alcohol comes into being naturally. (Unless they could somehow genetically engineer yeast to make the synthetic stuff instead of the real stuff.) So what you're talking about is basically a synthetic form of Everclear.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
You have to compare what you're buying. Romulan Ale is illeagle, hence you almost always have to pay extra "black market" fees. On the other hand, the PGG requires water from one particular planet, so the price goes up in proportion to the distance from said planet. Then, of course there is the price difference between mixed drinks (PGG) and straight drinks (Romulan Ale). This all varies depending on which part of the Galaxy you're in.
He effected a bored affect.
I can only imagine how little work I would get done, and how many more students would fail out of college.
Hangovers do not prevent people from drinking.
Hangovers do prevent people from going to class or work the next morning.
The thing about drinking is that people forget fairly quickly what a hangover feels like... And go... "Oh what is one beer going to do to me! Mmmm... This buzz feels good. Another one can't hurt!"
Of course 6 beers, 2 shots of jadger, a 5th of tequila, and then 4 hours later... Your alarm goes off around 6:00am and your still in the bathroom with your head in the toliet and your swearing you'll never drink again.
Of course... Until next week until you decide to have another beer and then all those memories of being hungover are completley forgotten.
If there were no hangovers, then people wouldn't drink more, but wouldn't call out sick the next day.
Seriously, how many college students and workers aroudn the world do you think called out this morning alone because of a hangover? Productivity and grades would increase world wide if they could drink and then get up the next morning without any ill effects.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...
And let me tell you why you're dead wrong, from personal experience and extensive studies of psychopharmacology. The risks of dependence are certainly there, but the health consequences of such dependence are in fact negligible... you'll note the lack of severe health consequences in long-term pain patients. Your interpretation of your personal experience does NOT supercede research on sample sizes far greater than yours.
1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
WOW, huge side effect there. Alcohol destroys your liver and tobacco causes cancer. I'll take constipation, thanks.
2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
It may be "harsher", but please point me in the direction of a study showing it's actually more harmful as opposed to simply more uncomfortable. Also, that's why the vast majority of opium is converted to pill or powder extracts.
3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
I don't know about the "FAR" with alcohol, but I do know it's FAR LESS addictive than nicotine. While substances derived from the alkaloids of opium do by far exceed alcohol in addictiveness, they are still less addictive than nicotine. That includes heroin. Look it up.
4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
Methadone, while more addictive, is not nearly as reinforcing and does not produce much in the way of euphoria. Therefore it can be effectively used to step off. Other medications are being used that are superior to methadone. Antabuse is less effective for alcohol abuse than medications for opiate abuse are, counseling even more so. Counseling for opiates does exist, and many people can taper off their dose. Furthermore, abruptly stopping drinking while strongly physically dependent can kill a healthy adult, this is not observed with opiate dependence (but the withdrawal is still quite severe).
5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
Oh what a load of bullshit. So can alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (but not from toxicity), and virtually every drug, including over-the-counter ones. If you're irresponsible about it, there's plenty of ways to get killed with a whole lot of activities. Opiates, from a clinical standpoint, are FAR less likely to be fatal than just about every other psychoactive substance class out there, legal and illegal. Participating in the illegal consumption of a drug presents its own risks, but these are outside of the effects of the drug.
6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.
Again, what a complete and utter load of unresearched bullshit. Toxicity from opium isn't even in the same league as toxicity from alcohol. Especially notable is opiums (and almost all derivatives on the market, licit or illicit) lack of neurotoxicity contrasted to alcohol's repeatedly demonstrated strong neurotoxicity. Not to mention hepatoxicity, which opium again lacks. Alcohol impairs your judgment more than opium, by a huge margin.